Krause: Patriots' latest win shows that coaching counts, too

Last Monday, after it was confirmed that Tom Brady would miss the entire season after tearing the ACL in his left knee, I asked someone, "Now what?"

"That's easy," he answered back. "Belichick LOVES this. This is a challenge to him. They'll go out and be 12-4, and win the division, and do everything everyone expected them to do."

I have to admit I wasn't sure ... and still don't know if I am now, even after Sunday's win over the J-E-T-S, Jets, Jets, Jets. But the conversation did get me to thinking of my favorite chicken-or-the-egg question when it comes to sports: Is Bill Belichick a better coach because of Brady? Or is Brady a better quarterback because of Belichick?

Analysts have trotted out this old canard a few times since Brady went down. And I've always thought it was a stupid argument, ever since it first started coming up in the Red Auerbach/Bill Russell days. There are so many answers, of course, but none of them definitive. Because there is no way you can say -- for sure -- which one made the other better.

Well, people say, Belichick's record without Brady is 43-58 (including Sunday's win), while he's 88-24 (regular season) with Tom Terrific. Isn't that answer enough?

No, says I. Actually, my reaction is the same as it is whenever someone throws statistics at me ... SO?

The only time anyone ever asks these questions is if they're looking to devalue the person in question. Auerbach ... Belichick ... Jackson ... all can, or could be, tough to take at times. So if you want to knock them down a few pegs, just mention that their success was/is clearly dependent on a dominating superstar or two.

Yet at the same time, the answer in all three cases is probably "yes," because these are special players whose talents have clearly left lasting imprints on their teams.

Jackson inherited his talent, but it's also worth noting that neither Jordan nor O'Neal won anything until the Zen Master showed up in their lives. So you can do the math.

It goes even deeper with Auerbach and Belichick. They had to recognize raw talent and mold it into something special. Russell may have revolutionized the game, but he needed Auerbach to recognize what he brought to the table and structure his team around it.

And Brady may be one of the great clutch players in NFL history, but he needed Belichick to recognize the merits of a sixth-round draft choice out of Michigan, unknown to anyone, really, except the Mel Kiper Jrs. of the world. And Belichick had to seriously coach Brady before he could ever become TOM BRADY -- which did not happen immediately after Brady put the clipboard down and took the baseball cap off.

To me, Brady's success is as predicated on Belichick as it is the other way around. And these relationships are hardly unique. Look at Vince Lombardi/Bart Starr; Don Shula/Bob Griese; and Bill Walsh/Joe Montana. I submit that none of the above would have risen out of the NFL also-ran pile were it not for their counterparts.

Likewise, neither Auerbach nor Russell would have achieved half the success apart that they achieved together; and ditto Belichick and Brady.

Let's acknowledge that reality does not diminish the accomplishments. The coaches had to be smart enough to recognize the talent, and patient enough to develop it. The players had to be willing enough to listen; and have enough ability to put their coaches' plans into action.

So even if the Patriots don't go 12-4, win the AFC East, and go to another Super Bowl, it doesn't mean Belichick is a bad coach. In fact, I submit that just making the playoffs, with this curveball thrown at him, will be more than sufficient validation of his coaching abilities.

All I know is that he's off to a good start.

Steve Krause is sports editor of The Item.

Local Weather